Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography South Ossetia

1. El modelo de intervención militar ruso-soviético

Author:
Alberto Priego
Publication Date:
10-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
Desde comienzos del siglo XX, Rusia y la URSS ha promovido un modelo de intervención militar que responde más a su visión imperialista que a sus necesidades de seguridad. Este hecho ha provocado que salvo cuando la intervención consistiera en una operación relámpago de cambio de gobierno, las aventuras militares hayan acabado en fracaso. Además, la incapacidad de Moscú para modernizar de facto sus doctrinas militares, unido a su atraso tecnológico, ha convertido al ejército ruso en una estructura ineficaz donde el factor humano no es valorado. Este trabajo pretende elaborar un modelo de intervención ruso-soviética que se repite en todas las aventuras militares rusas desde los años cincuenta hasta hoy mismo.
Topic:
Security, Imperialism, History, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Russia, Ukraine, Soviet Union, Chechnya, Hungary, South Ossetia, Crimea, and Czechoslovakia

2. The Evolving Nature of the Armed Conflict in South Ossetia: From "Frozen" to "Hot" and Back

Author:
Zinaida Shevchuk
Publication Date:
01-2014
Content Type:
Journal Article
Abstract:
This article explores the conflict processes in one of the most volatile regions in post-Soviet space - South Ossetia. The objective of the analysis is to bring more nuanced and explicit distinction to the understanding of the heterogeneous nature of the armed conflict. By studying the evolution of issues at stake and conflict processes we can trace the pattern of conflict behavior. The study focuses on an assessment of the extent to which ethnicity is merely a convenient common dominator to mobilize ethnic groups in the struggle over resources, land, or power. This study rejects the common notion that the contemporary conflicts in the South Ossetia can be understood as "unfinished business" from the past ethnic conflicts that had been "frozen" under the communist regime.
Topic:
Security, Development, and Government
Political Geography:
Russia and South Ossetia

3. 'Moral power' as objectification of the 'civilian'/'normative' 'EUlogy': the European Union as a conflict-dealer in the South Caucasus

Author:
Syuzanna Vasilyan
Publication Date:
07-2014
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of International Relations and Development
Institution:
Central and East European International Studies Association
Abstract:
This article develops a new conceptual framework of 'moral power' by arguing that the 'civilian'/'normative' power Europe paradigms are insufficient for understanding the essence of the conflict resolution policy of the European Union (EU) in the South Caucasus. Analysing the conflicts of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, the study reveals that until the August 2008 war, the EU was an incoherent actor in terms of the interplay among its institutions and member-states. The EU's policy has been devoid of a long-term peace-focused strategy, making it inconsequential; as a result, the EU has merely dealt with, rather than managed, the conflicts. Its rhetoric has been inconsistent with practice. Often the EU has subordinated its values to material and power-related interests. Moreover, the EU has hardly been normatively stable in its approach to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Bypassing inclusiveness until the launch of the Geneva talks pertaining to the Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts, the EU has not enjoyed much legitimacy by the de facto states. Whereas the EU has largely failed to resolve the South Caucasian conflicts, it has achieved partial success by putting a halt to the 2008 hostilities between Russia and Georgia. Overall, having faltered as a 'civilian'/'normative' power it still has to fare as a 'moral power'.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Political Theory, and Bilateral Relations
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Georgia, South Caucasus, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia

4. Georgia-Russia: Still Insecure and Dangerous

Publication Date:
06-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
Ten months after the “August war” between Georgia and Russia, violent incidents and the lack of an effective security regime in and around the conflict zones of South Ossetia and Abkhazia create a dangerous atmosphere in which extensive fighting could again erupt. Russia has not complied with key aspects of the cease-fire agreements that President Medvedev reached in August/September 2008 with French President Sarkozy in his then EU presidency role. Its 15 June Security Council veto of an extension of the sixteen-year-old UN observer mission mandate in Georgia and Abkhazia and its apparent intention to require the removal of the mission of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) by the end of the month are blows to regional security that will further fuel tensions. Most of the on-the-ground conflict resolution machinery is thus being dismantled. Moscow should review its counterproductive position and work for a reasonable compromise allowing the UN and OSCE monitors to continue their important work.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, and War
Political Geography:
Russia, Eastern Europe, Moscow, Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia

5. The Georgia Crisis: Implications for the Partnership for Peace

Author:
Graeme P. Herd and Daniel A. Flesch
Publication Date:
03-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
On 7 August 2008, Georgia attacked Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia, with heavy artillery, rocket launchers, and ground troops in an attempt to take control of the breakaway republic, which contained bases of both Russian and OSCE peacekeepers. Russia, claiming to be acting under the mandate of peace enforcement, pushed Georgia out of both South Ossetia and another breakaway Georgian republic, Abkhazia, and deep into Georgian territory. This created the potential for regime change, as the Russian Army appeared to be moving on Tbilisi with the intent of overthrowing Georgia's democratically elected government. On 8 August 2008, Russian military forces crossed the Georgian border into South Ossetia and Abkhazia in a successful effort to repulse Georgian troops. The immediate casus belli for Russia was genocide, with claims that “over two thousand” South Ossetians had been killed by Georgian troops, along with the shooting of ten Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, which necessitated a humanitarian and peace enforcement operation. The Russian advance included ground troops, tanks and armored personnel carriers, and air and sea operations, combined with coordinated kinetic and cyber attacks. Russian forces also crossed into Abkhazia in defense of their compatriots – 70 percent of the Abkhaz population of 220,000 are Russian passport holders, and 90 percent of the South Ossetian population of 70,000 are also Russian citizens.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, International Affairs, and Population
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Georgia, and South Ossetia

6. Federalization of Foreign Relations: Discussing Alternatives for the Georgian-Abkhaz Conflict

Author:
Bruno Coppieters, Tamara Kovziridze, and Uwe Leonardy
Publication Date:
10-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Since its declaration of independence on April 1991, Georgia's sovereignty has been challenged by civil war and by secession attempts on the part of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Negotiations on the reintegration of these two entities through federalization have failed. The Russian Federation, the United Nations (UN), and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe were involved in a series of negotiations on a federal division of powers between Georgia, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, but these negotiations did not achieve practical results. The positions between the Georgian government and the Abkhaz authorities concerning the status of Abkhazia have been moving even further apart.
Topic:
Security and Politics
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Central Asia, Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia